Translator’s Highlights

“Causes of Conflict” by Hugo Unikower and “Bismarck’s Attitude Toward Jews” by Dr. [Otto] Jöhlinger are the central articles in the July 29. 1921 issue). ChatGPT generated themes from “Causes of Conflict”:

1. Lack of Understanding and Misjudgment: A major theme is that ignorance of others’ cultures, religions, and perspectives leads to misunderstanding, unfair judgment, and ultimately conflict.Sstaying withinthe  narrow confines of one’s own community fosters prejudice.
2. Conflict as a Consequence of Self-Interest: The document concludes with the idea that conflict arises when people act out of self-interest, seeking advantages that they believe will bring them happiness. Atonement or peace can only come when individuals move beyond these selfish desires.

And from the article on Bismarck:

1. Bismarck’s Changing Attitude Toward Jews: Bismarck’s views on Jews evolved over time, reflecting three distinct phases of his life. Early in his career, he was opposed to Jewish emancipation and held anti-Jewish sentiments, which were influenced by his conservative circles. However, later in his career, his views became more pragmatic and less openly antagonistic.
2. Influence of Social and Political Context: The article suggests that Bismarck’s attitudes were shaped by the sociopolitical environment in which he lived, including the circles of conservative, noble elites, and his family background. His views were not static but changed in response to the broader transformations in German society and politics.
3. Misinterpretation of Bismarck by Antisemites: The article critiques how Bismarck has been mischaracterized by both antisemites and their opponents. While he made anti-Jewish remarks early in his career, these are not representative of his overall legacy, and many of his later actions showed a different attitude.

Dr. Walter Brinitzer concludes his essay, “Judaism and the Death Penalty,” opposing the death penalty. It’s an example of how contributors to this newspaper, knowing that the readership was keenly interested in the Jewish perspective on current affairs and important international debates, examine these from the unique position of historical experience and modern philosophies. The argument he makes is framed by contemporary social justice theory and rooted in the Torah and Talmud as well as historical Jewish practice of keeping the death penalty, however, only very rarely carrying out executions. For those who are interested in knowing more, Mishnah Makkot 1, 10 illuminates the law with the pronouncements of the Talmudic sages urging against compounding murder by executing the murderer.  The context for the international examination of the death penalty is the scrutiny of pre-war imperialistic or monarchical in light of political reforms.

In this issue, we read more examples of antisemitism occurring throughout Germany. At this point in time, they still appear to be isolated instances, but we begin to see the rise of nationalist or right-wing publications and the fearlessness of antisemites staging public events.

On a brighter note, a short report on the Brelsau 1990 Tennis Club’s winners, shows the comprehensiveness of Jewish social life at the time. The topic of German-Jewish tennis players was an interesting tangent to follow. Germany’s tennis champion before 1933 was a half-Jewish athlete named Daniel Prenn. (Source: https://bruckfamilyblog.com/post-19-game-germanys-1929-davis-cup-team-vs-czechoslovakia/)

Articles
Causes of Conflict by H[ugo] Unikower
Judaism and the Death Penalty by Dr. Walter Brinitzer (Continuation)
Bismarck’s Attitude Toward Jews by Dr. [Otto] Jöhlinger
From My Diary poems by Ludwig Davidsohn
About Keren Hajesod: United Israel Appeal
The Teachers Association and the Central Organization of German Jewry
Immigration to the United States
Bolsheviks and Jews
Kolberg. Summer Solstice Celebrations and Antisemitism
Göhren (Rügen). Big Mouth – Small Brain
The New Palestinian Parliament
The Jewish Pogroms in White Russia
From the Administration of the Breslau Synagogue Congregations
Breslau Tennis Club 1909
Family Announcements

p. 1

Causes of Conflict.

by H[ugo] Unikower, teacher.

In narrow circles thinking also narrows,
And mankind grows, expands with larger purpose.
[Friedrich Schiller, “Wallenstein’s Camp”]

The truth of Schiller’s thought is the key to the great puzzle of the cause of dissatisfaction in the world. Whoever doesn’t leave the narrowness of his hometown, who doesn’t have the chance to know other people except the nearest ones, who only knows the manners and customs, the language, the thinking of his own country or only knows his own religion, has a difficult time understanding the world of others, another country, another people, or another religion. And if we don’t know and understand others, we misunderstand them easily and judge them unfairly. Wrong judgment leads to the wrong treatment of people and nations and thus to conflict. Our natural defense mechanism of being distrustful of everything unfamiliar hinders us in correcting our prejudice against people. This feeling of mistrust is subject to our reason. Whatever we can’t directly recognize through our reason is conveyed through our feelings.  “What no logician’s logic can see, the child-like mind sees obviously. [Friedrich Schiller, “Wörter des Glaubens,” translation by John Sigerson.]

Feelings however should never be the deciding judge in the case of things and people. As long as we let our feelings judge we can reach the wrong conclusion and make a false judgement. Only when there is no logical understanding does one have to resort to emotional judgments. Correct judgments require thought, especially when making comparisons. It’s by comparing that we learn early in our intellectual development the concepts of space, time, etc. Comparing is also required for correctly judging our fellow men. Peoples, cultures, religions must be compared if we want to make a just assessment and not prejudice.

Here is just a small example of our old German and old Jewish traditions are similar although the old-German impatience and cold-heartedness claim to be the source of all good, as if the mind Geist depended on the shape of the nose or the color of hair and eyes.

The Bible tells of Joseph that he was loved and cherished by his father Jacob more than his other sons. The father thought he could protect him from all mishaps as long as he didn’t let him go far from home. Although he thought he could keep other dangerous influences away from his favorite child by doing this, so that he had not sent him as a shepherd with his other sons to the furthest meadows, misfortune came from within: the pride and arrogance that had grown in the child thanks to his being spoiled and fussed over drew his brothers’ hatred. They sold the proud brother who had told him of his dream where he was master over his father and his brothers as a slave. The boy who had grown foolish through his perceived good fortune ended up being bent to the yoke of slavery in spite of his overly careful father’s efforts. The fate of men follows its course and cannot be influenced by outside forces. He must go through his apprentice years like every other person otherwise he stays childish and arrogant—useless for the practical life. Joseph learns to be modest, to resist temptations and feels the consequences of willfulness on his own body that his earlier ways would have dealt him had he not gone to the rough schooling of life. Intellectual ability, symbolized through the art of interpreting dreams is what allows him to become a useful member of society after his dramatic fate: he reaches the highest level of human achievement and follows the path of tragic experiences to external and internal satisfaction that one tends to call “happiness.”

Although this story grew from the Orient, from Egyptian dream interpretation and Canaanite nomadic life, it has the same core thought, the same perspective on life as the Parzival legend that grew from the adventurous life of German knights.

Herzeleide had lost her husband, King Gamuret, to knightly combat. So she withdrew into the lonely forest with her son to prevent him ever being tempted by knightly battles. Cut off from the life of the world, he learned only a few things about it in theory from his mother’s explanations. As her explanation and portrayal of God gave him a strange idea of this concept, when he one day did see a knight he thought him to be a God. What his mother had always feared and put all her thinking and actions toward that happened anyway. When he saw the knight Parzival immediately felt the urge to perform knightly deeds: He leaves to seek adventure which his mother could not prevent. His unfamiliarity with the world, the fruit of his isolated upbringing, appears as a flaw throughout his battles with the many obstacles in his way. But courage and confidence, the art of sacrifice and self-control overcome this flaw so that he does finally reach the “holy grail” on whose delivery his good fortune depends.

The comparison shows that people strive here and there for the light. Only the ones who want conflict, and live by the sword, will always want to know the deciding point that will turn things to their benefit. Atonement can only be in the service of those advantages which they believe will make them happy.

Judaism and the Death Penalty.

by Dr. Walter Brinitzer – Chemnitz. (Conclusion.)

[Translator’s note: Warning! Part One contains explicit descriptions of methods and instruments for carrying out the death penalty up until the period immediately following WW1, when some European countries had revised their capital punishment laws and practices in light of the devastating experience during that war.]

We uphold the idea of reparation when we see punishment as a means to restore the disturbed sense of justice, but we let the Talion and with it the death penalty which can actually only be justified by the Talion.

Thus we deepen the idea of reparation by aligning it to ethical requirements.

We should only have such a right and allow it when it does not contradict our ethics, but rather supports them.

However, the executioner’s assistant doesn’t get to escape the sixth Commandment.

The state, as the protector of justice, has above all the duty to respect human life unconditionally. –

The death penalty also contradicts the essence of punishment.

Punishment should befall the criminal, not annihilate him.

The commandment to love one’s neighbor also applies to the criminal. The sinner remains God’s child, even if a ruined child (Jes. 1, 4, Deut 14,1).

Just as the shattered tablets lie in the chest, God holds all people equally in his heart (Menachot 99a).

Not the sinner, but the sin should vanish from this earth (Ps. 104,35).

The godless one who becomes better will leave his earlier sinfulness behind, “all the wrongs he has committed are not to be considered; through the piousness he practices shall he continue to live (Jer 18, 22).

“Do I take pleasure in the death of the godless one?” asks the Lord. Would I not prefer that he turns from his ways and lives? (Jer. 18. 23).

In criminal psychology, the murderer is certainly not at the lowest level of inhumanity.

If one removes the chance to learn a moral lesson from the criminal, the whole idea of reparation risks turning into seeking vengeance.

Through punishment, the criminal is to be brought to a moral sense of responsibility for one’s actions. For that, it is absolutely essential that he remain alive. –

Should someone still not be convinced by all the reasons against the death penalty, so the fact alone that a mistake can be made and an innocent executed (and we know innocents have been executed) should be enough to make every intelligent person be repulsed by the death penalty.

There is no more cohesive entity than human nature. The whole universe is not more complex for every person a particular reflection of the universe itself.

Hence it is simply impossible that anyone besides God can fully understand how a person’s nature develops. Even if people became much smarter than they already are we can assume that there would still be some mysteries.

As long as there is a part that one cannot know with complete certainty there is a doubt that the accused is the actual perpetrator—one must always take into account that there might be an undiscovered condition that makes the perpetrator incapable of understanding their action and their responsibility for it.

Of course, in this case, there are certain norms that are foundational and must be considered, but when in a life or death issue no doubts at all can be dismissed. **

Whoever saves one life, saves an entire world. (Sanhedrin 37a).

IV. Judaism’s Position

The death penalty was so circumscribed by the Pharisees that despite the Bible’s laws it was as good as abandoned.

The Talmud created a great number of guarantees and requirements that all had the purpose of making the death penalty impossible to carry out.

In civil cases 3 judges sufficed; the lightest criminal case called for 23 judges and the most important court required 71 (Sanhedrin 1, 4,1).

Before a judgment could be pronounced, the guild of the accused had to be proven without a doubt.

Confessions of guilt could not cause a death sentence or any other punishment because the confession was evidence of some improvement and regret. Or it could happen that someone confesses to a murder out of desperation or to save someone else’s life  (Sanhedrin 4, 5).

Someone could be accused of murder only by two trustworthy witnesses who warned him that he would receive the death penalty and despite the warning committed the crime anyway.  

The witnesses must have seen the act from beginning to end and cannot contradict themselves in the smallest detail (Sanhedrin 5,3).

The witness interrogation was extremely painstaking and intense. Witnesses involved in death penalty cases were admonished with the following words: “And He said, “What have you done? Hark! Your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the earth.

If a person sins, whereby he accepts an oath, and he is a witness [to some matter] by seeing or knowing [it], yet he does not testify, he shall bear his transgression; Leviticus 5 Translation source.

HOW WERE THE WITNESSES INSPIRED WITH AWE? WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CHARGES  WERE BROUGHT IN AND INTIMIDATED [THUS]: PERHAPS WHAT YE SAY IS BASED ONLY ON CONJECTURE,  OR HEARSAY,  OR IS EVIDENCE FROM THE MOUTH OF ANOTHER WITNESS,  OR EVEN FROM THE MOUTH OF A TRUSTWORTHY PERSON:  PERHAPS YE ARE UNAWARE THAT ULTIMATELY WE SHALL SCRUTINIZE YOUR EVIDENCE BY CROSS EXAMINATION AND INQUIRY? KNOW THEN THAT CAPITAL CASES ARE NOT LIKE MONETARY CASES. IN CIVIL SUITS, ONE CAN MAKE MONETARY RESTITUTION  AND THEREBY EFFECT HIS ATONEMENT; BUT IN CAPITAL CASES HE IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS BLOOD [sc. THE ACCUSED’S] AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS UNTIL THE END OF TIME,  FOR THUS WE FIND IN THE CASE OF CAIN, WHO KILLED HIS BROTHER, THAT IT IS WRITTEN: THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER CRY UNTO ME:  NOT THE BLOOD OF THY BROTHER, BUT THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, IS SAID — i.e., HIS BLOOD AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS. (ALTERNATIVELY, THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, TEACHES THAT HIS BLOOD WAS SPLASHED OVER TREES AND STONES.)  FOR THIS REASON WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THAT WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL,  SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD.  FURTHERMORE, [HE WAS CREATED ALONE] FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AMONG MEN, THAT ONE MIGHT NOT SAY TO HIS FELLOW, ‘MY FATHER WAS GREATER THAN THINE, AND THAT THE MINIM  MIGHT NOT SAY, THERE ARE MANY RULING POWERS IN HEAVEN; AGAIN, TO PROCLAIM THE GREATNESS OF THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE: FOR IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS,  THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, FASHIONED EVERY MAN IN THE STAMP OP THE FIRST MAN, AND YET NOT ONE OF THEM RESEMBLES HIS FELLOW. THEREFORE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO SAY: THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR MY SAKE. PERHAPS YOU WILL SAY: WHY SHOULD WE INCUR THIS ANXIETY?  [KNOW THEN:] IS IT NOT ALREADY WRITTEN, AND HE BEING A WITNESS, WHETHER HE HATH SEEN OR KNOWN, IF HE DO NOT UTTER IT?  AND SHOULD YE SAY: WHY SHOULD WE BEAR GUILT FOR THE BLOOD OF THIS [MAN]:  — SURELY, HOWEVER, IT IS SAID, WHEN THE WICKED PERISH, THERE IS JOY!

After these admonitions the witnesses were examined by seven questions:

IN WHAT SEVEN YEAR CYCLE?  IN WHAT YEAR? IN WHAT MONTH? ON WHICH DAY OF THE MONTH? ON WHAT DAY?  AT WHAT HOUR [OF THE DAY]? AND, AT WHAT PLACE? R. JOSE SAID: [THEY WERE ONLY ASKED:] ON WHICH DAY [OF THE WEEK]? AT WHAT HOUR? AND, AT WHAT PLACE? [THEY WERE FURTHER ASKED:] DID YE KNOW HIM?  AND, DID YE WARN HIM? Sanhedrin translation source

Even if the witnesses say it happened yesterday, they are asked these seven questions to uncover contradictions.

As soon as there is a contradiction, the testimony is declared void, without them being accused of false bearing false witness.

When Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai was judging a case where the murder happened under a fig tree, he asked the witnesses whether the stalks of the tree were thick or thin to see if they contradicted each other or simply did not know. (Sanh. 5,2).

If the witnesses had seen someone running out of a ruin with a bloody sword and found a victim’s still-bleeding body, they can’t accuse him of this murder because an infinite number of possibilities could indicate that the suspect is not necessarily guilty of this murder (Sanh. 37b).

If someone kills someone whose bones,  intestines, and the like are damaged, he cannot be guilty [of murder] (because this person—who is Terefah [unfit or impure, not kosher]and would not have lived long). If a Terefah kills someone he will be condemned to death only when the murder occurs in the presence of the court.

The connection is thus: Witnesses who are found to have lied because of the defendant’s alibi will get the punishment they had wanted the defendant to get (Deut. 19,19). However, the witnesses could say, “We only wanted a person to die who would have died soon anyway” (Sanh. 4,1).

A trial will be re-opened only upon the defendant’s request (Sanh. 4,1).

Everywhere we see the efforts to avoid the death penalty.

In Mishnah Makkot 1 10 it states:  A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Translation source

 [Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor] once in seventy years.

We hope that this mindset finally wins.

Indeed already today all countries give clemency to most murderers.

The time when we see the death penalty much as we see witch trials and torture is not far off.

May we free the new legal code from the medieval remnant of the death penalty so that the State forever fulfills the sixth Commandment’s holy demand.

[Outings with the Jewish-Liberal Youth Organization]

p. 2

Bismarck’s Attitude Toward Jews

By Dr. [Otto] Jöhlinger, Advisory Councilor to the Ministry of Finance, Berlin.
This article was first submitted to the “Kölnische Zeitung.”

Gustav Schmoller wrote in his thoughtful essay on the changes in Bismarck’s views that they were shaped by seemingly unresolvable contradictions, and these contradictions were indeed many. Not only that, the incongruity between Bismarck during the time he entered government service and when he became President of the Prussian Ministry was extraordinarily sharp. Firstly, Bismarck believed in the feudal state, yet it is he who introduced the general, equal, and private right to vote to the German empire. He was originally an arch-conservative, one of the main supporters of the far-right wing, and yet when he was Chancellor he made the conservatives pay their due. He founded the “Kreuzzeitung” in 1848, but he in his memoir “Thoughts and Recollections” he wrote most disparagingly about his newspaper, more than any other national or international newspaper. He referred to “the newspaper’s poisonous mixtures” and its lies. In 1876 he held a speech in parliament against the “Kreuzzeitung.” Until 1850 Bismarck was supporter of the guild system. As Schmoller says he regarded the reinstatement of the guild-system as one of the most important economic measures to reverse the false equalization brought about by the liberals’ laws, yet he is the one who brought about far-reaching freedoms for business and industry, for the stock market in Germany. Until 1876 Bismarck believed in the free market, however in 1879 he introduced tariff-based policies. In terms of socio-politics Bismarck’s opinion was that the state should institute productive co-ops—later he is actively engaged in socio-politics.

These are only a few of the contradictions in Bismarck’s life of which there were many more. But what do they  tell us? Certainly not that Bismarck had a mercurial character who hung his coat as to how the wind blew and let his politics serve whatever means. Bismarck was not this sort of “Politician of Opportunity.” If there is such a great difference between the Bismarck of 1848 and the Bismarck of 1870, if Bismarck after 1890 is a completely different man as the “first servant of Wilhelm I”, it’s because the world had undergone change. Between the Bismarck of 1848 and the one from 1890 are 42 years and so many events! Three wars were waged, a unified kingdom was created. Economically, culturally, and sociologically Germany was very different. Should Bismarck have been inure to these developments? Just as the old Goethe had a very different take on things as the young Goethe of Frankfurt, the same is true of Bismarck. The saying [from Nietzsche], “Only he who changes, stays akin to me” applies to Bismarck as well. Precisely in this do we perceive Bismarck’s greatness, that he is not an obdurate reactionary, that he’s not just a follower of groups with blinders on, but a person with open eyes, a bright mind that can quickly surmise the necessary. He had a rare and extraordinary ability to observe that was supported by an unusual amount of knowledge, and the courage to separate himself from his surroundings and tradition whenever he recognized their falseness. The break with the conservatives which alienated his personal friends, the circle in which he had met his beloved wife must have been the hardest thing to bear. The bitterness over what his faction had done to him mirrored the break with the conservatives and left a hole in his soul, but Bismarck was too great to make concessions in order to avoid a crisis. Schmoller correctly states, “If he had stayed the feudal nobleman and reactionary captain of 1848, he would not have had the wherewithal to become a Ministry President, unlike a Senfft von Pilsach, Gerlach, Kleist-Retzow, and Wagner. Bismarck distinguishes himself by standing high above his landed peers and his own family. One loves calling Bismarck an arch-reactionary, a Junker, a nobleman, an agrarian. But nothing is more wrong than this. Bismarck was not so much a Junker as is commonly thought—half of his blood was not at all noble, but liberal and bourgeois. His mother was the daughter of a well-known liberal administrator, Anastasius Mencken, who came from a long line of scholars and administrators and who was thought of as “suspect” in conservative circles. Into this mix of city bourgeoisie and landed nobility comes the union of both sets of characteristics: the gigantic strength and energy from his father’s side and the intellectual abilities inherited from his mother. Bismarck is a half-breed in the true sense of the word and the combination brought him an overabundance of intelligence and talent. (Karl Scheffler described this beautifully in his book on Bismarck which unfortunately did very much distort Bismarck’s image.)

One had to keep these psychological principles before one’s eyes in order to understand who Bismarck was and how we changed. The same changes we see in politics and society were experienced by Bismarck and his attitude toward Jews. One loves labeling Bismarck an antisemite. One has not held back— antisemites as well as Jews—to characterize him as the father of the antisemitic movement. The Antisemites have held him up as the face of their movement, often completely misunderstanding the Chancellors’ true position, often purposely twisting his words. Believers on both sides seek to hand onto sayings that Bismarck made in public before 1848, forgetting that Bismarck thoroughly recanted his old views and sharply criticized those from his circles of friends who brought these up.

If we want to understand Bismarck’s views on Jews, we have to divide this man’s life into three parts that are sharply distinct. The first period spans his public appearance to his entrance into civil service as a representative from Frankfurt to the national congress; the second period from his service as the ambassadorship, as the President of the Prussian Ministry, and as Reichs Chancellor until 1890; and the third his time in the Sachsenwald until his death.

His statements from the three periods are so fundamentally different, often contradictory that when one finally sees them one would believe different people had said them. The “crazy Bismarck” is no friend of Jews. He tries to oppose them objectively, but many anti-Jews would not be completely mistaken to use his words as evidence of his antisemitism. No wonder. For in the circles from which Bismarck came and in the circle he met Johanna v. Puttsamer, his wife, one did not love Jews, perhaps because one didn’t know them, maybe because the ones whom this landed nobleman met weren’t always the best representatives. It’s from this time the statements come that deal negatively with Jews or want to limit their rights. The young Bismarck had no sympathy for the equal rights of Jews.

Of course it must be noted that not every word that Bismarck spoke in anger or on some occasion as though it were some legal declaration meant for posterity as undeniable proof of Bismarck’s views. Bismarck himself pointed this out and Bismarck researchers have found more than one quote that don’t fit into his communication patterns. The exceeding loyalty with which Bismarck served his king and Kaiser William I is well known yet we know of some strong statements Bismarck made when he was frustrated or disagreement. Should we take these as bearing witness to his true feelings about the king? The same goes for the occasional observations he let drop about Jews in private conversations or letters. But young Bismarck, the crazy nobleman from Kniephof, did not have much love for Jews, which is well-known speech to the entire National Congress of 1847 in which he was very reactionary and drew the attention of the congress through his speeches, especially the one on June 15, 1847 where he spoke on “Prussia as a Christian State.” He emphasized from the outset that he belonged to those known in the parliament as “dark and medieval.” He said:

“I am not an enemy of the Jews, and if they want to be my enemies, I forgive them. I even love them in certain circumstances. I grant them all rights, except to have leading positions in a Christian state…I see Prussia as a Christian state, as a state that has the duty to realize Christian teaching, to actualize it. That the Jews could help us fulfill this goal I greatly doubt… Therefore, Gentlemen, let us not diminish the people their Christianity by showing them that it is necessary for their lawmakers to be Christian. Let us not rob them of the belief that our laws drink from the sources of Christianity, and that the state is charged with the realization of Christianity, even though it doesn’t always succeed….When I imagine myself, the representative of the holy majesty of the king, in front of a Jew whom I should obey, I must confess that I would feel oppressed and dissatisfied. The joy and honor with which I fulfill my duties to the state would disappear. I share this feeling with the masses of low-born folk and would not be ashamed of their company.”

In this same speech, Bismarck mentioned a region where there were farmers who owned nothing except for their land. The furniture, the animals in the barn, the grain on the field—everything belongs to Jews. “I have never heard of similar usury from Christians, at least in my practice.”

We find some observations about this speech in his letters to his bride. June 15, 1847:

“Yesterday was a boring Jewish debate. 25 speeches for the emancipation of Jews that repeated the same sentimental pablum. Early this morning Jews again. I made a long speech against emancipation, said a lot of bitter things, don’t go through the Königsstraße after dark because the Jews will kill me.

On the 18^th of June he wrote his bride about the discussion on marriages between Jews and Christians and mentions the vote on “the Jewish marriage question. I really don’t care. I have to go to the wool market.” Jewish marriage doesn’t seem to be of great importance to Bismarck.

On November 15, 1849 Bismarck opined on civil marriages and the people’s Christian consciousness. He opposed civil marriages and did so in crass language. Bismarck explained that the introduction of civil marriage would reduce freedom of religion to an empty phrase if one considers what the Christian, especially the Protestant, church requires, and that their members must follow their constitutional articles of faith, before they are allowed to claim, “the blessing of the Church, only through which the marriage is valid. Bismarck fought the introduction of civil marriage which he thought was hostile and could cause people to choose civil marriage over church marriage. Then he expressed himself:

I can only see that civil marriage could be a requirement in the case of reformed Jews. For a true Jew marrying a Christian would be a moral impossibility, and vice versa. If those Jews, who are no longer real Jews but only falsely call themselves Jewish, and Christian women, who falsely call themselves Christian, want to join in a civil marriage, we could allow an exception. I still find it puzzling that for these few renegades, we would lay such an unheard-of requirement on the millions of people who have stayed faithful to the beliefs of their fathers.”

In these speeches, one can clearly see the influence of the Puttkamer and Blankenburg circles, and other such Pietists, who have succeeded in swaying the “crazy Prussian nobleman.” (continues in the next issue.)

From My Diary

By Ludwig Davidsohn (the editor of this newspaper.)

Koheleth. [Ecclesiastes]
O, vanity of vanities, pointless effort
A short, thorny life long
Full of the eternal pain of being – And all is vanity!
O wise king, in  your soul too
Rings that old question: “God, why?,” –
That sounds in the breast of the lonely millennia
And never rests, like the mighty sound of the sea. . .
“Why all this? God, why?” —
__ __ __ Give yourself up to it, move forward in faith
and become dust! – The mysterious depths of the earth
remain lost to you! – Shout the anguished question
to the mountains in sunset’s glow:
“What is the purpose of this miserable life?”
And the echo answers clear and softly: “Life!” . . .

 Omnes una manet nox . . . [Horace, Ode XXVIII, “One night awaits us all”]
  There is no road or path that leads from one to another,
There is no understanding of each other,
Longingly stretching out one’s arms is only
Passing one another by.
  No comforting light glows in the night of your “I,”
No mouth can tell you about the other,
In loneliness do we all dream, forever alone
Even those souls meant for each other.
  Often longing thinks there are bridges
From one world to the other; —
Oh! Over the sea and from land to land
can no one ever walk!
  Forever spellbound by your “self” must you
Alone, longing and lost, feeling your way,
You can never free yourself from this prison
Never clarify the confusion.
 Darkness rings you, the fog rises,
Makes all the stars disappear. …
Pray! – But God is occupied and stays silent,
You will always seek yourself, yet never find yourself.

 To Doralice Glory with an example from my “Geschichte der Berliner Juden.” 
You shadowy memory of an old sorrow,
You’re still alive, you haven’t descended!
Since then, I too have drunk only feverish longing
from the cup of time…
  As dreamily the singing sounds, this whispering
From misery-filled years, —
And what the sad song carries,
I can only understand too well!
— — — An echo rings within like a dark tone
of bells that toll for the dead, — —
Oh, your comforting soul could
Take from me that doleful song! . . .

Doralice Glory. [She enchanted a Tatar king, her capturer, in Canto XIV, Orlando Furioso.]

                                   I.
Peacefully I sat with you at the forest’s edge
And read to you, …. at ties looking up,
Glanced quickly into the shining blue of your eyes
And the last rays of sun in your golden hair.
— Your pale face was oddly light….
You stood up then, … before the emerald fir
Stood your slim figure, — quiet and still and white
You stepped through the breath of the summer’s day. —
Steadfastly, I stared at your beloved image and it were
as if it transported me to the stars’ eternal pictures.

                                             II.

Have you ever circled a crystal glass
slowly with a wet finger? —
Did you then hear the dreamy tone
That rose like silver waves?

See, my heart is such a glowing bowl,
Filled with your being,
And in the depth of the quivering glass
Blossoms and glimmers your lovely image. Bring carefully with a light hand
The delicate crystal to ring and quiver,
And the sounding rim
Will quietly sing you a magical love song….

p. 3

Aus dem Reich.

About Keren Hajesod: United Israel Appeal.

A few weeks ago, the head of Keren Hajesod, that is, Rosenblüth, made a proposal to a union of Jewish leading organization to hold a conference in Berlin to make a decision on whether or not they should participate in Keren Hajesod. Such a conference would cost about 4,000 Marks. We leave it to our readers to think about whether this sum, which was collected for the development of Palestine should be allowed to be wasted in this way, and whether this kind of waste has happened in other organizations.

The Teachers Association and the Central Organization of German Jewry

With regard to the rejection of the teachers’ requests at the fifteenth Synagogue Congress—as well as of the Association of German-Israelite Congregations’ special committee’s recommendations “to study the situation of Jewish teachers,” the board of the Teachers Association has issued this decision:

“The board of the Teachers Association would like to recognize and thank its delegates to the fifteenth Congress of congregations for their strong representation of the teacher’s demands while at the same time regretting that the Congress rejected the most important demand “to regulate the work conditions and salary of teachers by decree. Although it is no substitute for teachers’ rights, we can see that there is an attempt by the Association of Congregations’ emergency action an attempt to make partial amends for the injustice that’s been done to them.

Berlin. Immigration to the United States. The heavy-handedness and prohibitive effect of the United States of North America’s new immigration law that limited the number of foreigners immigrating to the U.S. to 3% of its total population starting in 1910 was spurred by the following event. Because of a telegraph from New York all Poles, 254 of which were Jews, were prohibited from boarding the Mount Clay steamship leaving for New York from Hamburg on July 14. The group was then allowed to board the Mount Carroll on July 21 so that they would arrive in August and then be within the quota.

Königsberg. Bolsheviks and Jews. The German Nationalist Federation felt itself obligated once again to provide the number of Jewish members of Russia’s government. The numbers were so ad-hoc that even the “Ostpreußische Zeitung” gave them a very modest placement. Now the Königsberg chapter of the Central Organization of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith completely stamped out the sparks of hatred by stating:

“The German Nationalist Federation published a report in Number 328 of this newspaper under the above-mentioned title that was “based on unquestionably reliable research” by the local service of the German Telegraph Information. This report had already been published by the Parisian newspaper, “La Marseille France” and then the “Kreuzzeitung” on February 12. This list has been proven to be wrong. According to Dimitri Bulaschow, among the 17 People’s Kommissars, that make up the actual governing Cabinet, the Commissar for War [sic], Trotsky, is the only Jew. In all governing Soviet organizations there are 10 Jews—according to two former members who have since died.

Doesn’t matter, the Jew will be burned. Says the Patriarch.

[more poems by Ludwig Davidsohni]

On a Romantic Novelle.
Cheerful jests from great-grandfathers’ days.
How far are you from our times,
Which are troubled by sorrows and plaints;
— Vanished are you now, trusted feeling of belonging! — —

Oh! Memories of a never-lived existence
With its fairytale-like starlight
Quietly echo, so quickly becoming silent
Yet holding men though they hear it not!

Like a rare bouquet of flowers, that’s no longer seen,
Because it blooms in gardens of long-forgotten castles,
Dream on, until a lover cherishes you
And enjoys your mysterious scent.

Dedication.
Years pass and disappear,
Time never too tired to remember,
Yet the life of the soul
Blooms always anew in us!

Some familiar figures,
Whom we knew and loved,
Can so hold our thoughts,
That no forgetting disturbs them!

And the magician called Memory
Erases all the shadows,
Brushes her images quietly
With glimmering gold. . . .

p. 4

From the Ocean Spa Towns

Kolberg. Summer Solstice Celebrations and Antisemitism. Almost every in this province and in all of Germany, the German Nationalists held solstice celebrations. We should certainly recognize when old traditions are kept up or brought back. Even Goethe when serving as a government minister wanted to make sure the old tradition wasn’t lost for the youth in Jena when the police wanted to prohibit their Saint John’s fire. However, it is completely intolerable to misuse such a celebration to agitate against a whole class of fellow citizens. That is what happened here at the German Nationalists’ solstice celebration because of the guest speaker, a neurologist. The centerpiece of his speech was a comparison between the Gotterdammerung and our times in which he said that Loki, the god of fire from the Edda songs was like the Jews. Where is our evil spirit? The Jews in Berlin and Vienna…he poisoned our soul so that we barely fought and finally just gave up. And so it went on in the childishly naïve medieval way, that blamed the bad harvests and the plague on the evil witches who atoned on burning stakes. It’s not worth analyzing the speaker’s superficial interpretation of the difficult and complex question of the cause of our loss with a simple answer—the Jews are at fault.

Göhren (Rügen). Big Mouth – Small Brain. Recently there’s been a spate of “glueing.” One of those little hate fliers testifying to German culture were glued to fences and walls by busy antisemites as they are wont to do, naturally decorated with swastikas. There’s a poem on it that starts: In our lovely Göhren, where Jews don’t belong…” It shows how someone can be German-folkish without having gotten the least bit of sense from German schooling. Truly: “Antisemitism is the socialism of fools!”

Palestine.

London. According to a Reuter message from Alexandria a delegation from Palestine comprising four Muslims and three Christians, led by a previous mayor of Jerusalem, has gone to England to convey to the English government the wishes of these groups for the administration and constitution of this country.

The new Palestinian parliament. Sir Herbert Samuel, the Chief Commissioner of Palestine recently announced that the formation of a representative body in Palestine is imminent. Reports from Jerusalem deal with this question, especially about the relationship of the new body to the existing Advisory Council. According to these reports the membership of the parliament will be considerably larger than the Council’s which numbers 20 members. Certain is also that the parliament will be elected by the entire population of the country following a process that is yet to be determined. With regard to the character of this people’s representation body one believes that it simply broaden the advising function of the Advisory Council. In any case, the new representative body will be more similar to the European type of parliament without being its equivalent. One hopes that the question of the representation of the people will be finally clarified over the next two months.

The Jewish Pogroms in White Russia.

Kowno, in July. The White Ruthenian government that is in exile here condemned the Jewish pogroms conducted by Poles and Bolsheviks in the occupied parts of White Russia. It states: For centuries we’ve lived and worked shoulder to shoulder with our Jewish fellow citizens. Culture and wealth in our country have been built by working together. White Russians have never stained their hands with the blood of a brother-people. Now the dark powers are at work to plant the hatred of Jews in our moral White Russian people. It is strange that the occupation forces tolerate this hateful agitation in our domain. Your lawful government, that is now forced to cede its own country to the enemy, appeals to you, the White Russian people: “Don’t fight against the Jews, but fight together with them against our common oppressor and enemy, fight against injustice so that a better and happier relationship between people, without any religious differences.?

Breslau.

From the Administration of the Synagogue Congregations.

In its closed meeting on the 24th, the representatives of the synagogue congregations voted unanimously to elect District Court Official Dr. Rechnitz, Beuthen, Upper Silesia to be the administrative director. The elected is 39 years old and is beloved among judges and Beuthen’s citizens. May this election, for which we have been preparing for many months to fill this vacancy for the Breslau congregation be a boon for those whose affairs have taken so long due to this unforeseen delay.

Breslau Tennis Club 1909. This year’s International Clubs Tournament had the following results: Men’s Singles: First place—Alfred Foerder, who also won the club championship in men’s singles in 1921; Second in Men’s singles Herbert Rund; Third Richard Pacyna. Women’s Singles first place went to Miss Erna Grünbaum.

Family Announcements.

Engaged:  Thea Mislowitzer to Erich Toczek, Lublinitz; Rosa Cohn, Berlin-Schöneberg, to Leo Wiener, Breslau.

Married:  Dr. Willi Jonas and Käthe Wurst, Berlin; Edmund Gabor and Hedda Weiß, Breslau; Bruno Markiewitz, M.D. and Else Pincus, Breslau; Artur Lubinski and Margarete Bergmann, Breslau.

Births:  Sons:  Arthur Loewe and Klärle, née Helding, Breslau; Walter Kary and Käte, néeTockuß, Breslau; Martin Friedmann and Frieda, née Cohn, Berlin; Wilhelm Kieser and wife, née Hohberg, Breslau; Siegbert Brandt and Margarete, née Conrad, Breslau.

Daughters: Leo Stein and Maria, née Berg, Dortmund; Robert Singer, M.D. and Lotte, née Bodlaender, Neisse; Erich Kassel and Ada, née Friedlaender, Oppeln.

Deaths: Helene Israel, née Kristeller, Glogau, Hermann Tworoger, Breslau; Josef Esrem, Bernstadt; Paula Goldberg, née Kramer, Breslau; Ottilie Landsberg, née Hausmann, Posen; Margarethe Koenigsfeld, née Heimann, Breslau; Else Schüftank, née Prager, Karlsruhe; Margarete London, Breslau.